Good morning, Mike
Comments interspersed.
Regards,
WRB
On May 8, 2009, at 09:59, Mike Willis wrote:
I have no idea of the figures but a large proportion of the ‘retired’
Ercoupes in the UK suffered crash damage, I think mainly on landing.
Most of these were Forneys used by flying schools back in the 1960’s.
I know of at least one Ercoupe that crashed on its test flight after
restoration, flown by a competent pilot of course.
The "test flight after restoration" is properly the job of a factory
test pilot. None available? Then whomever is willing gets the job,
regardless of experience or talent. If the crash was the result of
mechanical failure, likely the preflight or "restoration" was
materially deficient.
I have to say that the behaviour of my Alon on landing took quite a
bit of getting used to. I came from training on Cessna 152s, and the
high rate of sink when you get slow, inability to get the speed up at
all by lowering the nose on short finals, and the lack of flaps made
the handling and technique required during landing very different to
what I previously knew and had experienced.
I would first point out that the "High rate of sink" can be instantly
and reliably arrested by the application of power when altitude has
been needlessly squandered in the approach and the necessary transition
from sink to glide unreasonably delayed.
It is physically impossible to mistake an Alon for a 152 at any angle.
These airframes have only in common that the engine is on the front, it
has four cylinders that burn liquid fuel, there is room for two persons
and the gear is tricycle and fixed.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that flying machines have
charactistics between two extremes. There are those that must be
knowledgeably guided by the pilot every moment or they will kill you,
such as helicopters, the little Grummans and most taildraggers. There
are those "in the middle" and there are Ercoupes (et al).
Many assume that the Ercoupe can be flown like other aircraft, and on
most days it can. That does not change the immutable fact that when
things get challenging and the pilot is not up to the challenge metal
gets bent.
Yes the Ercoupe might be easy to fly and learn on.
It is, and that is because that was a design goal achieved beyond
reasonable expectations.
No one that learns to fly in an Ercoupe under an instructor competent
in the type has any problem whatsoever resulting from it's
unconventional capabilities and handling qualities.
But it’s characteristics during this crucial phase of flight are
different to the ‘norm’. Underestimating that, or forgetting about
it, is obviously pilot error.
Agree 100%.
It took me probably 20 hours and 40 landings before I felt comfortable
about my landing technique. I’d probably be quite dangerous flying a
Cessna again now!
This has always been true. The Ercoupe's alleged "peers" were all
taildraggers. The stall/spin fatality rate for all other airplanes
when it was designed was horrendous and built in. You don't change
that without changing the fundamental flight characteristics. This was
a necessary and quite acceptable compromise by the designer and
manufacturer. The fact that existing pilots might not accept the
necessity of understanding the different theories of operation before
strapping on an Ercoupe is to their discredit and not that of the
plane.
So I would say the Ercoupe is definitely a safe aircraft, the problem
is promoting it as an easy to fly aircraft, which implies you don’t
need to learn much to jump out of one type and into an Ercoupe.
You hit the nail on the head here as to the actual "problem".
I have yet to comprehend how or why an aircraft known to have been
specifically designed to be "easy (and safe) to fly" by a new student
could be PRESUMED to fly like any other airplane by an otherwise
qualified pilot. If it did, it could be no improvement!
There is meaningful difference between genuine implication and the
unwarranted presumption of the uninformed. An uninformed pilot can
not, by definition, be simultaneously a safe or qualified pilot.
Flawed logic mixed with sufficient ego is the perfect recipe for
disaster because the complacency which results effectively obscures the
genuine dangers of ignorance.
WRB
Safe flying,
Mike
Alon A2
A-188
G-HARY
www.ercoupe.co.uk
